Getting lucky against a slow-player (or passive player)

[fatdave]

Every so often, I'll make a play that could be perceived as dumb, but I'll end up hitting and raking in a huge pot. It's typically the sort of play that ends up with the other player(s) going off on me in the chatbox.

However, I feel that they only have themselves to blame. If they had protected their hand, I wouldn't have been in there to take all their chips from them.

An example, below. A $55 MTT on Party, down to 64 out of 420 people, top 50 get paid.

The hand, more info below:

NL Texas Hold'em
Level:8 Blinds (150/300)

Seat 9 is the button
Total number of players : 10
Seat 1: Seat 1 ( $2300 )
Seat 2: Seat 2 ( $2350 )
Seat 3: Seat 3 ( $8021 )
Seat 4: Seat 4 ( $5210 )
Seat 5: Seat 5 ( $7710 )
Seat 6: Hero ( $9885 )
Seat 7: Seat 7 ( $2695 )
Seat 8: Seat 8 ( $10808 )
Seat 9: Seat 9 ( $2150 )
Seat 10: Seat 10 ( $4440 )
Level:8
Blinds (150/300)
** Dealing down cards **
Dealt to Hero [ Qh Kh ]
Seat 2 folds.
Seat 3 folds.
Seat 4 folds.
Seat 5 folds.
Hero raises [1200].
Seat 7 folds.
Seat 8 calls [1200].
Seat 9 folds.
Seat 10 folds.
Seat 1 folds.
** Dealing Flop ** [ 8h, 7h, As ]
Hero bets [2900].
Seat 8 calls [2900].
** Dealing Turn ** [ Ac ]
Hero is all-In [5785]
Seat 8 calls [5785].
** Dealing River ** [ 5h ]
Hero shows [ Qh, Kh ] a flush, king high.
Seat 8 shows [ Kd, Ah ] three of a kind, aces.
Hero wins 20220 chips from the main pot with a flush, king high.



I had just moved to the table a few hands prior and really had no reads, however I didn't expect the player below to go up against one of the few people at the table that could really hurt him, near the bubble.

I think the other player made three mistakes in this hand:

1) Not re-raising a late/middle position raiser with AK.
2) Not re-raising with TPTK after the flop to protect his hand (ie, if I had went all in on the flop, he would have called immediately, but he didn't want to bet himself all in).
3) Not doing either of the above two against somebody that could cripple him on the bubble (he eventually limped over the bubble with his 900 chips or whatever).

I'm trying to find where I made a mistake in this hand. I could have bet less on the flop, but I personally don't think he would have came over the top (since he didn't when I bet the pot). On the turn, since I had bet representing the Ace, I could have checked, representing that I had made trips, and he either would have checked behind me (which would have been a mistake for him, I believe), or protected his hand by betting out (which I'm not sure he would have done, but at which point I would have folded, not wanting to put all my chips in on a passive draw).

Instead, I go all-in, knowing that he can only call me with AA or AK (which he happened to have).

The reason this is in Psychology is because this is something I have a problem with frequently. I feel that I played this hand much, much better than him because he failed to protect his hand and put himself in a dangerous situation that he could have gotten out of by merely raising even once.

Is the quote "The Fortune Favors the Bold" really true, or are plays like this very -EV in the long run?

If I hadn't hit, sure I might feel dumb that I put all my money in on a draw, but at least I was being aggressive at the right time. I wouldn't have seen this river if I was in calling mode, because I wouldn't want to risk all those chips on a draw by calling passively.

I'm having trouble what I'm really trying to express here. Perhaps you Psychology/Poker geniuses can interpret what is going on in this post, and help me come to terms with whether this form of aggression is valid or not.

[Mr. Curious]

Did you at any point think that you might be behind in this hand?

The way you were betting, the guy played the hand (mostly) correct. You do not always need to come over the top with AK and there is nothing wrong with letting someone who probably has a worse kicker bet the hand for you.

Aside from that, you will always get berated by people who you get lucky against in tournaments because there is so much more of an emotional connection to the game. Just turn off chat.

[vexvelour]

I agree. If I was him I probably would have thought it was nice of you to bet the best hand for me. However the flush draw was out there to begin with, IMO he should have been a bit more aggressive on the flop and perhaps even gone all in.

[Guernica4000]

Fatdave,

First off I want to make clear that I don’t agree with chat abuse or chat-teaching. For one I think it is rude and bad for the game plus it scares away the fish.
That said and not being result orientated I think the villain played the hand better than you.

Look at it this way:
He called your bet PF (maybe a trap, maybe to play safe and see if something hit)
He hits his Ace. I know that you did not put him on Ax so you bet into him on a draw, representing the Ace and maybe counting the K and Q as live overs.


He has to think he has the best hand; with top pair and top kicker. The only thing he could be worried about is trips, since it is unlikely you would raise 4xBB on A7 or A8.

Your bet on the flop committed almost half of your chips so had I been the villain I would have gone all in there since I don’t think you would have folded, but he wanted to make sure he got your chips and let you be the aggressor with the worst hand.

The Ace hits the turn and you go all in, he can only call and you suck out on the river.

To further my point let’s play this hand the other way around. You hold AK and by a supernatural reading ability or x-ray vision you 100% know your opponent has KQh. How would you play the hand?

Poker Odds Calculator from cardplyer.com

AK (71.5%) vs. KQh (28.5%) PF
AK(68.9%) vs. KQh (31/1%) Flop 7h 8h Ad
AK (81.8%) vs. KQh (18.2%) Turn Ac and that is when the chips went all in.


Hope you did well the rest of the way. Good Luck!

[fatdave]

I think the point I'm trying to make here is not so much that I played a specific hand badly (although I may have). The point I'm trying to make is that when somebody slow-plays, or plays passively, they give me the opportunity to steal the pot away from them, not by stealing it outright, but by getting lucky on the turn or the river.

The other player then goes on a rant about "how lucky I am", even though if they had taken control of the hand before the flop or on the flop, I wouldn't have been in a position to get lucky.

Perhaps the hand I showed wasn't really a good example. Take, for example, the guy that smooth calls with AA in mid position, allowing me to check something like 8c9c in the BB. The flop comes 7c Td Ac, giving me an open-ended straight draw and a flush draw (I used the Ac instead of say, the 2c, so that I wouldn't actually be ahead with 8c9c after the flop, but would instead be a 3-2 dog). I check, AA bets, I check-raise all in and then hit on the turn or the river. In a situation like this, if AA had raised preflop, I most likely wouldn't have been in the pot after the flop.

I realize that in tournament poker, sometimes you have to take risks based on stack size / blind size / level time / etc...

...but what I am wondering is, is this sort of aggressive play going to be -EV in the long run, or will this aggression pay off for me?

Some times, the plays I make will be due to a bad read (for example, I thought the passive player in the OP had something like TT or JJ, and was calling on the flop, hoping I would check to him on the turn and let him take it from me, or maybe so he could check behind and try to showdown cheaply (if he thought I was bluffing)).

Think of it like this... it's a cold winter's day, and you go to a convenience store and leave the engine running and car unlocked while you go inside. A car thief takes your car. Obviously, the thief is more at fault, since they stole your car. However, shouldn't you take some of the blame for giving them such an opportunity?

While the thief may have done a dumb thing (semi-bluffed into a slow-player), if you had locked your car (raised pre-flop or re-raised on the flop), they wouldn't have had a chance to steal your car (get lucky after the flop).

If you are a professional car thief, the best way to steal cars is to find the ones that are unlocked (take pots from passive players, or somebody representing passivity (whether they are really slow-playing or not)). You don't walk the streets at night and hi-jack a car at a stoplight (bet into a dangerous situation, like somebody that has actually shown aggression).

Is this a valid analogy? If the analogy is valid, is it +EV in tournament poker?

[rgschackelford]

Slowplaying is a calculated risk, or gambit, to make more chips. If the person with AK comes over the top with a big raise, you probably throw your hand down. At this point, he's looking to make some extra scratch, if an ace falls. When to slowplay depends on the specific situation. If the table is tight, slowplaying is very dangerous. If the table is loose, slowplaying is probably a good idea. However, anyone can hit their one-outer. There always exists that chance that your slowplay will blow up in your face, but if the EV is positive, and you know you can make more by slowplaying, without greatly increasing your chances of losing the pot, then go for it. But, just remember, it will happen. I've had slowplays blow up in my face. Just remember, when someone hits their set to bust your two pair, they miss that set about 22 other times. With what you lose in that one time, do you stand to make up in the other 22 hands? And remember to consider the situation.

That's all I got for now.

Rusty G.